From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org (Bjorn Andersson)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:19:11 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] remoteproc: core: Ensure error message is clear
In-Reply-To: <20160811073657.GB1715@dell>
References: <20160804092153.23032-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20160804092153.23032-2-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20160809172825.GB26240@tuxbot> <20160809181243.GC1581@dell>
 <68ec0dd7-676d-47a9-19ba-9dcfc9569902@ti.com>
 <20160811073657.GB1715@dell>
Message-ID: <20160811191911.GB26240@tuxbot>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu 11 Aug 00:36 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> 
> > On 08/09/2016 01:12 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On Thu 04 Aug 02:21 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
[..]
> > >>> -	dev_dbg(dev, "carveout rsc: da %x, pa %x, len %x, flags %x\n",
> > >>> +	dev_dbg(dev, "carveout rsc: da %x, pa %x, len 0x%x, flags %x\n",
> > >>>  			rsc->da, rsc->pa, rsc->len, rsc->flags);
> > 
> > If you are modifying this trace, it's better to following the leading 0x
> > convention on all arguments rather than just the length.
> 
> I'd be concerned if anyone thought it a good idea to print out memory
> addresses !0x.  The length is the only parameter there which could
> (and has) cause confusion.
> 
> However, the fix-up is trivial, so I'm happy to oblige.  I'll leave
> the final decision to Bjorn and fix-up if he sees it necessary.
> 

I applied this patch yesterday, I see both changes here related to the
issue presented (confusing printing of len) so I'm fine with not
touching the other parts.

That said, there are a few other format strings in this driver that
would benefit from some love as well, several cases where we should use
%pK or %pad rather than using %llx and a cast to unsigned long long.

Regards,
Bjorn